There’s a war on, for your mind. In this war, no man is neutral. You are either a soldier, or you are territory to be conquered.
People like to think they have ideas, but this is really only true
for a select few. In most cases, people don’t have ideas, ideas have
people. Minds are territory which ideas control. Ideas which control
great swaths of territory thrive and conquer new lands, while ideas that
lose all their territory cease to exist.
Ideas thusly struggle to survive, to crush their rivals, and to gain
new ground. When cornered and in imminent threat of extinction, they
fight harder than ever.
But ideas do not compete on a level playing field. Truth and lies
battle not as equals, but as David and Goliath, respectively. The truth
must travel a narrow and often predictable path through a gauntlet of
its enemies who cast projectiles of doubt and distraction in perpetuity.
Lies meanwhile enjoy the freedom to change form and tactics at will.
The truth can, and often does, make the bearer quite uncomfortable.
Lies enjoy the anesthetizing features of a blood parasite’s bite.
While lies must ultimately fail due to their inability to accurately
interpret reality, this does not make victory inevitable for the truth.
Lies can destroy the mind of the bearer, salting the earth, and leaving
no ground for truth to hold.
This is the threat of the leftist menace in America today. The
Democrat plan for America is to open the borders, neuter the police,
subsidize sloth at the expense of production, borrow without limit,
disarm the law abiding, criminalize self defense, glorify homosexuality,
sterilize women, and murder the unborn. It’s not a policy disagreement,
it’s literally a plan to destroy our race and nation. Anyone who isn’t
fighting that as a literal threat to our survival, is an accomplice to
our demise, and anyone who is will earn for himself the most ruthless
and hostile enemies imaginable.
None of this is in effort to prevent people from being offended. It
is an effort to prevent people from being convinced. They are attempting
to eradicate our ideas from the world, and they will put a bullet
through every last mind containing those ideas if need be to accomplish
the goal. You cannot avoid the conflict. You can either fight to
prevail, or you can be a helpless victim of the enemy onslaught.
Either way, let there be no confusion. It is not a mere matter of
preference. Either we win and set matters right, or we lose and mankind
dies with us.
The
House of Representatives is about to vote on a bill that would force
online platforms to censor their users. The Allow States and Victims to
Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA, H.R. 1865) might sound noble, but it would do nothing to stop sex traffickers. What it would do
is force online platforms to police their users’ speech more forcefully
than ever before, silencing legitimate voices in the process.
The House Rules Committee is about to approve a new version of FOSTA [.pdf]
that incorporates most of the dangerous components of SESTA. This new
Frankenstein’s Monster of a bill would be a disaster for Internet
intermediaries, marginalized communities, and even trafficking victims
themselves.
FOSTA would undermine Section 230, the law protecting online platforms from some types of liability for their users’ speech. As we’ve explained before, the modern Internet is only possible thanks to a strong Section 230.
Without Section 230, most of the online platforms we use would never
have been formed—the risk of liability for their users’ actions would
have simply been too high.
Section 230 strikes an important
balance for when online platforms can be held liable for their users’
speech. Contrary to FOSTA supporters’ claims, Section 230 does nothing
to protect platforms that break federal criminal law. In particular, if
an Internet company knowingly engages in the advertising of sex
trafficking, the U.S. Department of Justice can and should prosecute it.
Additionally, Internet companies are not immune from civil liability
for user-generated content if plaintiffs can show that a company had a direct hand in creating the illegal content.
The
new version of FOSTA would destroy that careful balance, opening
platforms to increased criminal and civil liability at both the federal
and state levels. This includes a new federal sex trafficking crime
targeted at web platforms (in addition to 18 U.S.C. § 1591)—but which would not require a platform to have knowledge that
people are using it for sex trafficking purposes. This also includes
exceptions to Section 230 for state law criminal prosecutions against
online platforms, as well as civil claims under federal law and civil
enforcement of federal law by state attorneys general.
Perhaps
most disturbingly, the new version of FOSTA would make the changes to
Section 230 apply retroactively: a platform could be prosecuted for
failing to comply with the law before it was even passed.
Together, these measures would chill innovation and competition among Internet companies.
Large companies like Google and Facebook may have the budgets to
survive the massive increase in litigation and liability that FOSTA
would bring. They may also have the budgets to implement a mix of
automated filters and human censors to comply with the law. Small
startups don’t. And with the increased risk of litigation, it would be
difficult for new startups ever to find the funding they need to compete
with Google.
More
dangerous still is the impact that FOSTA would have on online speech.
Facing the threat of extreme criminal and civil penalties, web platforms
large and small would have little choice but to silence legitimate
voices. Supporters of SESTA and FOSTA pretend that it’s easy to
distinguish online postings related to sex trafficking from ones that
aren’t. It’s not—and it’s impossible at the scale needed to police a
site as large as Facebook or Reddit. The problem is compounded by
FOSTA’s expansion of federal prostitution law. Platforms would have to
take extreme measures to remove a wide range of postings, especially
those related to sex.
Some supporters of these bills have argued
that platforms can rely on automated filters in order to distinguish sex
trafficking ads from legitimate content. That argument is laughable.
It’s difficult for a human to distinguish between a legitimate post and
one that supports sex trafficking; a computer certainly could not do it with anything approaching 100% accuracy.
Instead, platforms would have to calibrate their filters to
over-censor. When web platforms rely too heavily on automated filters,
it often puts marginalized voices at a disadvantage.
Most
tragically of all, the first people censored would likely be sex
trafficking victims themselves. The very same words and phrases that a
filter would use to attempt to delete sex trafficking content would also
be used by victims of trafficking trying to get help or share their
experiences.
There
is no amendment to FOSTA that would make it effective at fighting
online trafficking while respecting the civil liberties of everyone
online. That’s because the problem with FOSTA and SESTA isn’t a single
provision or two; it’s the whole approach.
Creating more legal tools to go after online platforms would not punish sex traffickers.
The climate for hate speech regulation in Canada appears to be shifting.
Traditional free speech advocates are reconsidering the status quo they helped create, in which hate speech is only a Criminal Code charge that requires political approval, and so is rarely prosecuted. There is even talk of resurrecting the defunct and much maligned ban on internet hate speech, Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
The latest example was a lecture this week by Omar Mouallem, an Edmonton journalist and board member of free expression group PEN Canada, in which he argued online racists have “weaponized” free speech against Muslims, and Canada should consider a new anti-hate law to stop them.
Mouallem told a University of Alberta audience that public discourse is “fatally flawed,” and overrun with hate propagandists who traffic in lies and provocations in order to pose as censorship victims.
The far right has “co-opted” the issue of free speech, and their activism is not a principled defence of a Charter value, but “a sly political strategy to divide opponents on the left, humiliate them and cast them as hypocrites and unconstitutional, to clear a way for unconstitutional ideas,” Mouallem said in an advance email interview.
The traditional liberal response of public censure and rebuttal is no longer effective because it just “devolves into a pissing match that goes nowhere and only makes people double down on their opinions,” he said.
“Given that Facebook groups and social media are the meeting point for hate groups to organize, and that online hate speech has a great ability to spread wider and faster, I think special regulation is worth considering.”
It is striking to hear that from a board member of PEN Canada, which is devoted to fighting censorship and defending freedom of expression, and was instrumental in the legislative repeal of Section 13, a law in the Canadian Human Rights Act that banned repeated messages, by phone or internet, that were “likely to expose” protected groups to hatred or contempt.
Why would these groups have to be "protected" if they weren't already noticeably contemptible?
The lecture follows news that the federal Liberal government is openly mulling bringing back Section 13, which was repealed by Parliament in 2014, but later found by courts to be constitutionally valid. It allowed for legal orders banning offenders from engaging in further hate speech, on pain of criminal contempt charges, and provided for fines of $10,000.
It also follows the backtracking of another press freedom group, Canadian Journalists for Free Expression, which launched a petition for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to “disinvite” U.S. President Donald Trump from a G7 Summit on the grounds that his administration’s attacks on press freedom have harmed (American) democracy.
That petition was deleted soon after it was announced, amid criticism that it hypocritically also violated the principles of free expression.
Even libraries have illustrated the shift. A memorial held in a Toronto library last year for Barbara Kulaszka, a prominent lawyer for Canadian hate propagandists, led the Toronto Public Library to change its room-booking policy, allowing officials to refuse bookings that are “likely to promote, or would have the effect of promoting, discrimination, contempt or hatred of any group.”
And just which groups always think hating criminals is wrong, and pitying them as "fellow victims" is good? Only criminals!
Tasleem Thawar, executive director of PEN Canada, said she encourages diverse perspectives on the board. There has been no change to the group’s official position “that an educated, thoughtful, and vibrantly expressive citizenry is the best defence against the spread of hateful ideologies,” she said.
“If the federal government were to propose a new law (against hate speech), we would certainly comment on the specifics and its possible effects,” she said. “However, PEN is also committed to dispelling hatreds, as stated in the PEN International Charter, including on the basis of identity markers like class, race, gender, and nationality. And it is true that hateful, marginalizing and even demonizing speech can chill the freedom of expression of the groups who are being subjected to such public bigotry.”
Hatred is only the perpetual form of natural anger - by attempting to ban all anger, whether justified or not, is to ban an emotion in an attempt to also ban the very thoughts which caused that emotion! And who gets to decide which thought to ban allegedly because it resulted in anger? The criminals!
All this might be evidence that the culture war over Canada’s uniquely balanced approach to hate speech is set to flare up again. There is nothing "unique" or even remotely "balanced" about government thought-control attempts.
Old arguments are being repurposed to fit modern media. Laws that were written in the age of telephone hotlines and printed newspapers are being reconsidered in the context of Twitter, Facebook and Google.
NO, that's simply using irrelevant symptoms to attempt to void the principle of free speech entirely!
As ever, religion — especially Islam — is at the core of the debate, according to Richard Moon, the University of Windsor law professor who authored an influential 2008 report for the Canadian Human Rights Commission that urged it to stop regulating online hate via Section 13.
In his forthcoming book Putting Faith in Hate: When Religion is the Source or Target of Hate Speech, Moon describes the traditional distinction between speech that attacks a belief, which is typically protected by law, and speech that attacks a group, which can rise to the level of banned hate speech.
Islam's Qur'an orders all muslims to hate infidels. The Qur'an itself quite literally "weaponizes hate!"
He argues that our understanding of religion complicates this distinction, because religion is both a personal commitment and a cultural identity. Hate speech, then, often works by falsely attributing an objectionable belief to every member of a cultural group.
“Most contemporary anti-Muslim speech takes this form, presenting Islam as a regressive and violent belief system that is incompatible with liberal democratic values. The implication is that those who identify as Muslims – those who hold such beliefs – are dangerous and should be treated accordingly. Beliefs that may be held by a fringe element in the tradition are falsely attributed to all Muslims,” Moon writes.
But only by apologists like you, Moonie! The "fringe" in islam is the one that pretends it's peaceful!
Mouallem, who does not identify as Muslim, is a former rapper, freelance writer, and co-author of a book on the Fort McMurray wildfire. He said he does not advocate the return of Section 13 exactly as it was. It often worked, he said, but it is “too tainted.”
Defending criminal muslims makes you a criminal muslim too, Omar Mu-Allah-m! Nice Taqiyya!
Section 13 was a “messy, if not farcical process,” he said, made more so by the “manipulation” of Richard Warman, the lawyer and former Canadian Human Rights Commission staffer who effectively monopolized the law, filing nearly every case and eventually winning them all, sometimes after posing online as a neo-Nazi to gather evidence. It was also “misused,” he said, by Canadian Muslim leaders on the “wishy-washy” case of alleged anti-Islam hate speech in Maclean’s magazine.
Yes, totalitarian fascist gangsters of all stripes seem united in banning opposition to their extortions!
So then of course such extortionists also love to say things like this:
But Canada should have some kind of “online clause” that addresses both the “uniqueness of online content” and this current historical moment in which there is “widespread vilification” of Muslims and “rapid mobilization of extremist groups.”
The only rapidly mobilizing extremist group is islam and its holy-mobster "muslim" gang members!
Now there are “flagrant” examples that would be caught by such a law, he said, such as Ezra Levant’s use of the term “rapefugees.”
Muslims - including muslim "refugees" - are told to emulate their prophit, who was a dedicated rapist.
“Allowing hate speech to remain in the public sphere actually signals that it’s socially acceptable, which gives licence to perpetuate it, and eventually can make it mainstream,” Mouallem said.
The expression that “sunlight is the best disinfectant,” meaning hate speech is best countered by more and better speech is “ineffective when you’re dealing with majority tyranny and certain discrimination is widely accepted.
This is the unique moment of hate speech in Canada and much of the ‘West’ right now,” he said. “Society has made an exception for Islam.”
OK fascists, I've said it before, and of course I'll have to say it again here and now:
ALL liberal “hate-speech laws” ARE crimes!!!
"The whole concept of "hate speech" (laws against hurt feelings) is political correctness run amok, a leftist anti-free-speech tool that provides an unlimited excuse to shut down and punish anyone who openly disagrees with establishment dicta. Every totalitarian state has similar laws designed to protect the rulers. Such laws have no place in a free society."
- Patrick1984 -
But Terminiello v. Chicago (1949), Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), National Socialist Party v. Skokie (1977), R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), Virginia v. Black (2003), Snyder v. Phelps (2011) These SCOTUS cases show that unpopular speech is still protected speech.
SO: What is "hate-speech" and why should it be considered a crime if it's NOT already: a) a threat; and b) slander (fraud)?
If it's not either PHYSICALLY threatening speech - or emotionally threatening BECAUSE it could physically impact one's life, like how fraudulent slander causes other people to react to one as if one were a criminal in need of hating and beating - then it's THE TRUTH: and so it SHOULD cause one the emotional distress of 'hurt feelings!' So it isn't objectively "offensive," but is, in fact, socially beneficial in that it helps defend society from criminals, whether or not said predictably victim-blaming criminal is subjectively "offended" by their victims being notified about THEIR offenses!
Having no facts to justify their aggressive hypocrisy, all criminals will resort to using emotive 'arguments' to justify their crimes by playing the victims. So they (liberals, muslims) can be relied on to try to criminalize hurt feelings and to make offending people, (i.e: the criminals, by accusing them of their crimes) illegal, too!
Let me repeat: ALL "Hate-Speech Laws" ARE CRIMES!
“Progressive” criminals - who like all criminals desire an equality of outcome over a true equality of opportunity, and to get it will always try to socially engineer ever-more rights and ever-less responsibilities for them selves, by offloading their responsibilities onto their victims by stealing their victims' rights - pretend to hold submissive masochism as the highest virtue (for their victims to hold, not them) and the ultimate crime to be causing offense and hurting other people’s (criminal’s) feelings, (i.e: by accusing them of their crimes).
So they want to make it illegal to accuse criminals of their crimes, since that might hurt their feelings and in offending them with the often-painful truth, "make" them commit even more crimes!
Is there anything which really ought to qualify as hate speech and be banned?
NO - not because it's "hateful" (because that sort of nonsense is only making subjective assessments based on emotions;) and "HATE" is really only the perfectly natural human response of perpetual anger towards ongoing crimes (like islam); without 'hate' we would never bother to accuse criminals of their crimes in order to stop those crimes.
Unreasonable false displays of hatred and anger on the other hand, are what the Left is good at - but that's already illegal, not because of the anger displayed - that's just the outrageous holier-than-thou virtue-signalling packaging used to disguise their preposterous extortion attempts - but because it's fraudulent slander.
Such criminal leftists who try to make "hate" into a crime, only ever make it 'illegal' to hate crime itself!
Speech which is already disallowed is incitement of immediate violence and death-threats ... and even those aren't illegal, if say they call for the police to use violence to counter ongoing mob violence and looting, or call for the death-penalty for murderers!
Further, ALL politicians who craft "hate-speech laws" and ALL cops who arrest people for "hate-speech crimes" and ALL lawyers and judges who prosecute people for them, should themselves be fired and JAILED for putting "hurt feelings" before FACTS!
Especially in the case of islam!
Pretending that the global crime-gang called islam is a “race” of poor swarthy animal-people, oppressed by the mentally superior whites, in order to slander everyone who notices it’s a crime-gang as a hatefully bigoted “racist” – is to deliberately enable that crime-gang’s crimes by hiding and destroying the evidence of same, and thus to be a willing accessory to those crimes. Since islam is a murder-gang, and the penalty for committing and enabling the commission of murder is DEATH, anyone and everyone who calls an opponent of muslims, islam, and their global jihad, a “racist!” should be lawfully put to death.
Everyone who defends islam and muslims endorses crime.
Endorsing crime IS a crime, so those doing it are criminals.
Right in the Qur'an is: the permission to murder Jews and Christians (Surah 9:29), to terrorize all non-Muslims (8:12), to rape young girls (65:4), to enslave people for sex (4:3), to lie about one's true goals (3:54), and the command to make war on all the infidels (9:123) and subjugate the entire world to Allah (9:33).
Are death-threats legal? NO.
Is extortion legal? NO.
Is slavery legal? NO.
Is murder legal? NO.
Is rape legal? NO.
THEN ISLAM IS ILLEGAL!
Rape, slavery, robbery, extortion and murder are never OK!
Everything muslims pretend to see as "holy" is already a crime!
So nobody has a legal right to practice islam anywhere on earth!
IN TRYING TO MAKE CRITICISM OF THE GLOBAL CRIME GANG CALLED “ISLAM” INTO A CRIME, TO PROTECT THAT CRIME GANG BY HIDING THE EVIDENCE OF ITS CRIMES, SUCH PEOPLE ARE CRIMINALS AND TRAITORS TO RATIONALITY, CIVILIZATION, AND HUMANITY ITSELF.
And, hadn't you heard?!
Being angry at ("hateful" towards) criminals is now the most vile sin, while pitying ("tolerating") them all as "fellow victims," is to be deemed the highest moral virtue, these days!
It's a global attempt to control our thinking through an emotional, sub-conscious "narrative" - so much so, that the only advice we hear from "our" hypocrite governments, their pet media, and the corporazi globalist banksters who own them all, seems to invariably be:
"Anyone who doesn't automatically pity all criminals as fellow victims should be hated!"
Which is why hurting the feelings of criminals by accusing them of their crimes, is now a "hateful" crime itself!
When one doesn't have facts on one's side (no criminal can rationally or logically justify their "crime is good - for me, because you all do it, too!" stance) one only has emotions left, and defending hurt feelings and "dignity" doesn't rely on cause and effect sequencing (where crime is defined as attacking thereby innocent other first).
But feelings or emotions aren't thoughts, much less morals - because unlike facts, they can be wrong: one may love an enemy who is still out to get one, and hate someone who is only trying to help - no, instead, our emotions are mere reflections of the three basic states of space-time (the static past, the fluid present, and the nebulous future, respectively): static fear, fluid greed, nebulous hope. Not exactly worth defending with one's life!
We hate criminals because they use their free will to choose to attack thereby innocent other people first. Only if there is no free will choices would they deserve to be pitied as "fellow victims." So invoking an idol of mysterious yet somehow also inevitable force to excuse crimes defines idolatry.
It is the nature of
governments that there exists a silent state of hostility between the
government and the people. Governments rule by deception and force. The
goal of government is to coerce the people into a regimented, docile and
obedient mass under a propaganda system based on altruism and
self-sacrifice.
Governments are not benevolent. Instead, they are autocratic and all
autocratic systems seek to consume the wealth and resources of the
producers of wealth while carrying on perpetual diversions.
Governments are created and organized to monopolize power and wealth.
If we consider the growth of government and coercion of the people
through a mass of complicated laws and regulations, we can only conclude
that the nature of government is force. This means not only force upon
our physical mobility, but more importantly force upon our mental
processes. We are disciplined to "political correctness" and the giving
over of our minds to a self-serving system.
Government propaganda effectively destroys our capacity to see our
master/slave relationship to government. Government coercion and force
has a very high success rate as long as it is invisible to the great
majority of people. Governments justify plunder and theft with
self-serving laws. The public is trained to obey all laws without
question. They cannot discern the illegality and bad intent of the laws.
This training begins at a very early age. The people are taught very
young to pledge fealty to the state through the public (non)education
indoctrination system. Children are taught they must not question
authority. Zero tolerance policies squelch free speech and the exchange
of ideas. Truths and absolutes are rejected in favor of tolerance,
situational ethics and consensus. Immoralities are presented as normal
lifestyles. Feelings are elevated above logic.
In his book, Government Schools Are Bad For Your Kids, James
Ostrowski explains how government schools came about. He shows that
public schools have always been about indoctrination above education.
They began with Martin Luther in 1524, who urged German princes to
"compel the people to send their children to school" because "we are
warring with the devil."
Ostrowski quotes historian Murray Rothbard:
"The Reformers advocated compulsory education for all as a means of
inculcating the entire population with their particular religious
views..."
Later, John Calvin endorsed compulsory schooling. Like Luther, Calvin
did so to spread his religious doctrine by government force.
Early in the 19th century the militaristic and authoritarian
Prussians pioneered compulsory education in Europe. Following its defeat
at the hands of Napoleon, the Prussian nation began to reorganize
itself and prepare for future wars. Under King Frederick William III,
the absolute state was made stronger and the nation’s minister, von
Stein, began abolishing the semi-religious private schools and placed
education under the minister of the Interior. Then the ministry set up a
system for certification of all teachers and created a graduation exam.
Again quoting Rothbard, Ostrowski writes:
"It is also interesting that it was this reorganized system that
first began to promote the new teaching philosophy of Pestalozzi, who
was one of the early proponents of ‘progressive education.’ Hand in hand
with the compulsory school system went a revival and great extension of
the army, and in particular the institution of universal compulsory
military service."
Quoting professor Richard M. Ebeling, Ostrowski writes:
"Modern universal compulsory education has its origin in the 19th
century Prussian idea that it is the duty and responsibility of the
state to indoctrinate each new generation of children into being good,
obedient subjects who will be loyal and subservient to political
authority and to the legitimacy of the political order. Young minds are
to be filled with a certain set of ideas that reflect the vision of the
official state educators concerning ‘proper behavior’ and ‘good
citizenship.’"
The American education system began its turn toward mass
indoctrination in 1946 following America’s joining with the United
Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO),
which set in motion the deliberate destabilization of American society
through the rejection of absolute morals and values, Judeo-Christian
tradition and Roman law, writes Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt in her book, The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America. From that point on, UNESCO dictated policy to the U.S. government regarding education.
At the time of the legislation joining the U.S. to UNESCO, President
Harry Truman remarked, "Education must establish the moral unity of
mankind." Truman’s words were echoed by a Canadian psychiatrist named
Brock Chisholm — an influential (to the United Nations) communist — who
presented a paper to the UN World Health Organization (WHO) titled "The
Psychiatry of Enduring Peace and Social Progress." In it Chisholm wrote,
"The reinterpretation and eventually eradication of the concept of
right and wrong... these are the belated objectives of practically all
effective psychotherapy."
Chisholm went on to recommend that teachers around the world be
trained in "no right/no wrong" psychotherapy techniques that have since
made their way into the teacher training curriculum.
American public education has become much less than just a sad joke.
Its downward slide accelerated with the passage of "No Child Left
Behind" under George Bush the Lesser, and then further with the adoption
of Common Core. None are left behind because none are allowed to get
ahead. The intelligent children are left languishing and fending for
themselves while extra resources are devoted to those unable to keep up.
A few years ago I inquired of a young relative of mine what he had
been studying in his seventh grade U.S. history class. Well, we spent
about 20 minutes on World War II, then several class periods on how the
U.S. Olympic Hockey Team beat the Russians in the 1980 Olympics, was the
reply.
In class they watched Miracle, the 2004 movie about the team and its victory.
How backward is that? Twenty minutes spent learning about a six-year
war spawned from the feckless, irresponsible and dastardly policies of
the elected and ruling classes that resulted in the deaths of somewhere
between 62 million and 79 million people worldwide; but several class
periods on a three-hour hockey game that gave Americans a temporarily
thrilling victory over a Cold War foe at the tail end of four moribund
years of Jimmy Carterism.
Even the seventh grader was perplexed by his teacher’s decision.
Glossed over in his class was more than 230 years of American
history. And while U.S. history is being glossed over, it is geared
toward ensuring "schoolchildren believe that America has been a nation
of bigots, racists, greedy collusive poverty creating capitalists, war
mongering imperialists, anti-immigrant, segregating, discriminating, and
disenfranchising racists and farmers; and that kids should be an
anti-war peace loving through diplomacy, diversity and immigration
seeking, tolerant through racial identity politicking citizens of big
government spending through redistribution of wealth and regulation
providing Medicare, minimum wage, civil rights and affirmative action
powered by the auspices of globalization and the United Nations,"
according to teacher and author Dean Kalahar, citing documents issued by the Florida Department of Education.
In public schools, children are taught the great explorers of the
15th and 16th centuries — if they’re taught anything about them at all —
were genocidal maniacs responsible for the destruction whole races.
U.S. Founding Fathers are presented as evil, slavery-loving,
women-hating bigots. Actual freedom-stealing racist tyrants like Che
Guevara are presented as role models.
The evils and murders of totalitarian regimes have been whitewashed
as necessary for the safety and continuation of the state — hence the
acceptance of the very uncivil war; the American love affair with the
war criminals Abraham Lincoln, U.S. Grant and William T. Sherman; and
the dismissal of the deaths by violence, disease and starvation of
850,000 people, many of them noncombatants. Americans today support the
overthrow of totalitarians in every nation but their own.
Today’s school children are taught that we needed the Constitution
because the nation was in chaos, Franklin Delano Roosevelt saved us from
the Great Depression and Theodore Roosevelt saved us from the "robber
barons."
And in all teaching, the state is presented as right and just, and
able to accomplish this despite a Constitution that is outdated,
inadequate and unjust.
The result of this is that once an individual goes through the public
school system he is a mature manifestation of the system and
practically insulated from reality and original inquiry. But beyond that
indoctrination, he’s simply much dumber than when he started.
A test developed for NASA to determine the creativity of its
engineers and scientists was administered to children aged 4 and 5 in
the 1990s. The tests showed that 98 percent of the children were
creative geniuses. Scientists then administered this same test to the
same children every five years. What they learned was that by age 10,
just 30 percent of the children were still geniuses. By age 15 the
number had dropped to 12 percent. When administer to them as adults aged
25 and up, fewer than 2 percent were still creative geniuses.
This demonstrates the power the indoctrination and subsequent
propaganda from the corporate mainstream media has over the human mind.
With this deterioration of cognitive abilities, chances are great
that the person will live his life a fiction. Cognitive dissonance — the
psychological conflict resulting from incongruous beliefs and attitudes
held simultaneously — sets in, rendering people with inability to
consider any truth other than the "truth" he or she has been programed
with.
From there the only acceptable social and moral thing to do is to
accept authority, conform to authority and above all, never question
authority, let alone its morality and its modus operandi.
The more generations that pass without open conflict with authority,
the more the public mind conforms and the more the people and the
government become one. Any "deviant" or "divergent" who questions
authority is sure to encounter a hostile response from his friends and
neighbors. He has defiled the Holy place.
Human liberty can only exist or be restored with an accurate
perception of reality. Mind distorting fictions of government must be
exposed. Our children and our grandchildren must be removed from these
public indoctrination centers and be placed in private schools or home
schooled. To do otherwise is to keep us dependent on an ivory tower
mysticism based on lies and the duplicity of politicians and
bureaucrats.
Yours for the truth,
Bob Livingston
Editor, The Bob Livingston Letter™
THE MEMO REVEALS THE COUP AGAINST
AMERICA The memo has been released, now it's time to
release everything.
February 2, 2018 Daniel Greenfield
The Democrats and the media spent a week lying to the American people about the "memo."
The memo was full of
"classified information" and releasing" it would expose "our spying methods." By "our," they didn't mean American
spying methods. They meant Obama's spying methods.
A former
White House Ethics Lawyer claimed that the Nunes memo would undermine
"national security." On MSNBC, Senator Chris Van Hollen threatened that
if the memo is released, the FBI and DOJ "will refuse to share
information with the House and Senate Intelligence Committees."
Senator Cory Booker howled that releasing the memo was
"treasonous" and might be "revealing sources and methods" and even "endangering fellow Americans in the intelligence
community."
The memo isn't treasonous. It reveals a treasonous effort by the Democrats to use our intelligence agencies to rig an
election and overturn the will of the voters.
The only two "sources" 18 are Christopher Steele, who was funded by the Clinton campaign, and
a Yahoo News article, that were used to obtain a FISA warrant
against a Trump associate. That Yahoo story came from Michael Isikoff,
the
reporter who knew about Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky but
suppressed it. It was based on more leaks from Steele which the FBI and
DOJ
chose to ignore. Steele's identity was already well known. The only new
source revealed is Yahoo News.
No vital intelligence
sources were compromised at Yahoo News. And no Yahoo News agents were killed.
The media spent a week lying to Americans
about the dangers of the memo because it didn't want them to find out
what was inside. Today, the media and Dems switched from claiming that
the memo
was full of "classified information" that might get CIA agents killed to
insisting that it was a dud and didn't matter. Oh what tangled
webs we weave when first we practice to deceive.
On
Thursday, the narrative was that the memo would devastate our national
security
and no one should ever be allowed to read it. By Friday, the new
narrative was that the memo tells us nothing important and we shouldn't
even bother
reading it. The lies change, but suppressing the memo remains the goal.
Rep. Nadler, infamous for securing pardons for Weather
Underground bombers, got caught between narratives when he insisted that
the memo was "overhyped," but suggested that it "endangers
national security." "I don't think anybody will be terribly shocked by
what's in the memo," he told CNN.
And requested an
emergency meeting of the House Judiciary Committee – a body he will head if Democrats win the mid-term elections.
Calling
emergency meetings is not the response to an "overhyped" and non-shocking memo.
There is no legitimately classified information
in the Nunes memo. But it does endanger a number of "Americans" in the "intelligence community" who colluded with the Clinton
campaign against America.
It endangers former FBI Director
Comey, former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, former Deputy
Director
Andrew McCabe, current Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and the
current FBI General Counsel Dana Boente who had previously served as the
Acting
Attorney General. These men and women had allegedly signed FISA
applications that were at best misleading and at worst badly tainted.
The
Clinton campaign had enlisted figures in the FBI and the DOJ to
manipulate an election. The coup against America operated as a "state
within a
state" inside the United States government.
"The political
origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior DOJ and FBI
officials," the memo informs us. But they did not reveal on the FISA
application that their core evidence came from the Clinton campaign.
Sources
were certainly being protected. But they were Clinton sources.
The memo reveals that without the Steele dossier there would have been
no
eavesdropping on Carter Page, the Trump associate targeted in this
particular case. "Deputy Director McCabe testified before the Committee
in
December 2017 that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from
the FISC without the Steele dossier information." But the FISA
application
neglected to mention that its primary source had been paid by the
Clinton campaign, was unverified and would continue to be unverified.
FBI Director Comey testified that he had told President Trump that the dossier was "unverified." Yet the "unverified" piece of
opposition research was used as the basis for a FISA application.
As Rep. Jim Jordan noted, "FBI takes 'salacious and unverified'
dossier to secret court to get secret warrant to spy on a fellow
American, and FBI doesn't tell the court that the DNC/Clinton campaign
paid for that
dossier. And they did that FOUR times."
"There's been no evidence of a corrupt evidence to obtain warrants against people in
the Trump campaign," Rep. Adam Schiff insisted. That's why he tried to block the release of the evidence.
The evidence was
unverified opposition research. Its source had been paid by the Clinton
campaign. Not only had Steele been indirectly working for the Clinton
campaign
(when he wasn't being paid by the FBI), but he made no secret of his own
political agenda to stop Trump.
"In September 2016, Steele
admitted to Ohr his feelings against then-candidate Trump when Steele
said he "was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was
passionate
about him not being president," the memo informs us.
That's
former Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr whose wife was being
paid by an organization hired by the Clinton campaign to investigate
Trump. Ohr then passed along his wife's opposition research to the FBI.
The
evidence couldn't be any more corrupt than that.
Steele was
passionate about Trump "not being president." So were his handlers
who ignored his leaks to the media until he "was suspended and then
terminated as an FBI source for what the FBI defines as the most serious
of
violations-an unauthorized disclosure to the media of his relationship
with the FBI." His previous meetings, including the one that allegedly
generated the Yahoo News article, were ignored.
Tainted investigations are nothing new. Law enforcement is as fallible as any
other profession. But the memo reveals a snapshot of just how many top figures colluded in this corrupted and tainted effort.
What drove
them to violate professional ethical norms and legal requirements in the FISA applications?
Top DOJ and FBI officials shared Steele's
"passion," and that of his ultimate employer, Hillary Clinton, to stop
Donald Trump at all costs. And they're still trying to use the
Mueller investigation to overturn the election results in a government
coup that makes Watergate look like a children's tea party,
Former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe is already under investigation. He's suspected of trying to sit on the Wiener emails
until the election was over. This alleged failed
cover-up triggered the Comey letter which hurt Hillary worse than a
timely revelation would have. McCabe's wife had financial links to the
Clintons.
Former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates was an Obama
holdover who had foolishly tried to use the DOJ to go to war with
President
Trump. Both Yates and Dana Boente were Obama and Holder choices. During
the groundless prosecution of the former Republican governor of
Virginia,
Boente had declared, "No one is above the law." We'll see if that's true
with everyone who signed the FISA applications.
If
Boente signed false or misleading FISA applications, he should be removed as FBI General Counsel.
The memo is only the first crack in the
wall. But it's grounds for an investigation that will expose the abuses
that led to eavesdropping on Trump officials. And the motives of those
who
perpetuated them.
A Washington Post piece suggested that just releasing the memo alone would allow Mueller to charge President
Trump with "obstruction of justice." That's how badly they want to get Trump.
A clear and simple fact emerges from the memo.
Top figures in the DOJ and the FBI, some loyal to Obama and
Hillary, abused the FISA process in the hopes of influencing or
reversing the
results of an election by targeting their political opponents. The tool
that they used for the job came from the Clinton campaign. Using
America's
intelligence services to destroy and defeat a political opponent running
for president is the worst possible abuse of power and an unprecedented
threat to a democratic system of free open elections.
We have
been treated to frequent lectures about the independence of the DOJ and
the FBI. But our country isn't based around government institutions that
are independent of oversight by elected officials. When unelected
officials
have more power than elected officials, that's tyranny.
A
Justice Department that acts as the Praetorian Guard for a political
campaign
is committing a coup and engaging in treason. The complex ways that the
Steele dossier was laundered from the Clinton campaign to a FISA
application
is evidence of a conspiracy by both the DOJ and the Clinton campaign.
It's time for us to learn about all the FISA abuses, the list of
NSA unmasking requests of Trump officials by Obama officials and the
eavesdropping on members of Congress. We deserve to know the truth.
The memo has been released. Now it's time to release everything.
Let's assume (because it's true) that each "race" or ethnic breed of human is simply the result of different families growing up in different geographical areas, where different traits were needed to survive: in the hot lands where food was plentiful, being lazy, impulsive, and promiscuous was the key to survival. Laziness was a bonus because of over-heating, and patience was needed both for fishing and for hunting (which mostly involved falling asleep near the local watering-hole, and waiting for animals to come down for a drink anyway). Impulsiveness was needed for when on occasion a snake or panther would drop out of the trees to eat one - since fighting wasn't an option, running away and hoping they'd eat the slower members of one's family (even if one's own offspring had to be abandoned without further thought) was the only logical survival response. And since those problems existed, but so did copious amounts of food, being promiscuous and winning the survival game by creating and abandoning offspring was the way to win with quantity over quality.
Compare that to the cold lands, where food (and natural animal enemies) were scarce - in such a place, being lazy, impulsive, and promiscuous wouldn't work, and would in fact get one killed off pretty quick. There, one needed to plan ahead, save up food, and limit the number of mouths one had to feed.
So today, pretending these different sorts of families are all the same, and so should all be brought together into one big happy lump, to breed out the differences, (because it would be mean not to) will have only one result: the larger, lazier, more impulsive and promiscuous family will dilute the smaller, smarter one into nonexistence - which result seems to be the libertine criminals' intended plan anyway.
(Because, to them, smart slaves are BAD slaves)!
But if the self-styled master "Elites" were them selves a bit smarter and less short-sighted, they'd realize that only the smarter families had been forced by their own survival circumstances to learn how to manipulate their own environments, rather than have their environments continue to rule them. Only they are capable of adapting to new conditions and stresses, of scrupulously learning to understand how to repair old things and invent new things.
Only they are naturally endowed with the potential foresight to be capable of managing their estates on this planet.
Diluting and destroying their own brethren in order to have only dumb servile slaves left - is quite dumb, too.
;-)
PART II: Political Science - For Real!
Politics is binary: the party of rational Fear (Conservatives) vs the party of delinquent Hope (Libertines).
The easiest way to Submit to one's own fear AS an external threat, in stead of as a helpful internal warning, (aka thinking) is to ignore it.
Pretend it doesn't exist, or it's too difficult and complex for anyone to ever really be able to understand causes and effects anyway.
Barring that, pretend the harmless warning is the real threat; shoot the messenger, and "fight" the Fear AS another form of Pain!
That's what defines "Psycho-Paths" (which is literally translated from the Greek as "Mind" or "Thought-Killers")!
So delinquent criminally negligent libertines pretend Hope is a Plan, ignoring details and covertly giving in to their fears BY ignoring them, and so also masochistically pretending to "control" their own fears, BY causing those very same, worst-case scenario problems which cause the damages and pains they fear the most - automatically, if only tacitly and 'subconsciously' (implicitly) Submitting in their cowardice to the notion that SINCE something could go wrong, SO it WILL go wrong, and in fact since it IS going wrong RIGHT NOW, they have to either instantly compromise with or Submit to it - in stead of, you know, have to go through that painful "thinking" process stuff, to actually try to avoid or prevent the damage and pain. They pretend to think that since fear causes additional pain, they will shrewdly, realistically simply cancel that additional pain (compromise with reality) caused by the fear, by allowing the pain to happen! Submit to the will of allah!
And naturally, the libertines pretend the rational Conservatives are "fear-mongers" who start wars just to cause more fear, while it's also patently obvious that they are the ones who do so, and only "project" their slanders)!
Further, these two divergent and opposing political "cultures" (social educations) have evolved "traditionally" from the different families of peoples who evolved in the South and East, and the North and West, respectively!
Those who have been forced to survive by adapting traits of lazy, impulsive and promiscuous behaviours, natually embrace Hope as a Plan, (and why not, when food is plentiful, and over-thinking things limits the impulse to run away from present dangers, and the survival game of out-breeding one's natural enemies is unhindered by lack of food) while those who had to survive by adopting forwards-thinking and sacrificing today for tomorrow, have had to naturally pay heed to and learn from their own Fears (which is also known as "thinking" and planning ahead) before they could earn hope by fixing the mistakes and solving the problems which caused the fearsome pain-causing damage!
Not that those who came up with the fatalistic and subjectivist, us-vs-them and might-makes-right tribal cultures cannot also learn from the more enlightened, objectively cooperative cultures developed by the smarter families.
